Friday, 27 February 2015

Today is the tenth anniversary of the formation of the tobacco control industry's preferred method of undemocratic censorship and destruction of freedom of choice, the FCTC.

Congratulations to them for being entirely unelected yet able to demand policies which have massively boosted tobacco industry share prices, while simultaneously imposing laws which restrict the liberty of people and private businesses to make their own decisions in life unhindered. And all while descending into a neurotic totalitarian pit of opaque debate, opulent self-enrichment, suppression of the press and trampling of free speech that would turn any self-respecting fascist green with envy.

Advertising for ice cream, frozen yogurt, ice pops, sorbets, and energy drinks would also be banned.

Well, that's ITV bankrupt in a week then.

“The list is not exhaustive and may be added to when used nationally,” the report said.

Not exhaustive? There's not a lot left! Besides, shouldn't it be parents who decide what kids eat and, indeed, watch on TV? It's a radical idea, I know, but just thought I'd put it out there..

But it's OK, there's nothing to see here. Yes, OK, tobacco control only wanted banning of tobacco advertising at first but are now onto plain packaging and eradication of product use in public in case a child sees it, but I'm sure there's no precedent. It's not like it's the same organisation using the same methods or anything.

UGH! I will never settle for the government telling me how to parent my children! This makes me sick to my stomach and just shows what kind of world we are headed for if we continue to allow this unwanted interference into our lives and our parenting responsibilities!!!

But I thought fat was good for us now? And why frozen yoghurt - is that somehow different from the other sort? And what's wrong with peanuts, the overwhelming major constituent of peanut butter? And cocoa, come to that.

Sorry - these are rhetorical questions, if only because these blockheads are unanswerable to anyone. How the Hell did we get here..?

In the WHO do we have a bunch of well-paid, unelected, totalitarian wankers formulating “world policy”. But that’s not the worst part. No-one is really obliged to pay any attention to this wanker brigade. The worst part is that the same mindset permeates [medically-dominated] Public Health and government health bureaucracies. As has been seen with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, politicians in most countries, under the advisement of their health bureaucrats (that attend the swank, 5-star WHO antismoking events) have hogtied their nations to the WHO FCTC. None of the constituents that the politicians supposedly represent/serve had a say in this.

We now have a multiplicity of governments that are not servants of theirconstituencies but have become beholden to supra-national organizations such as the WHO. It’s really medically-dominated Public Health partnering with the State in governing their constituencies and overseen by an unelected, unaccountable [medical] organization – the WHO. Rather than politicians being servants of the public, the public is being manipulated into servants of the State. Most still won’t awaken to the fact that we are witnessing an aspect (behavioral) of neo-eugenics unfolding before our very eyes, this time on a global scale.

Doesn’t this sound like eugenics ("reproductive hygiene")? The American/German eugenicists of early last century figured similarly.

We don't seem to comprehend - in the slightest - that the eugenics catastrophe of early last century was physician-led. The medically-aligned and social engineering is a demonstrably dangerous mix. The painful lessons of not all too long ago seems to be entirely lost.

Eugenics is notorious for its racial/breeding/heredity dimension. Less well known is that it also has a behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco/alcohol (negative eugenics – viewed as body poisons), dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise [find a eugenics text at a uni library. It will typically have sections on anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol] Eugenics reduced all to the physical. Health was perversely reduced to only a physical, absence-of-disease phenomenon (biological reductionism), devoid of any other dimensions, e.g., mental, social. Humans are viewed as not too different from a herd of cattle that can be "engineered" along particular dimensions for the best biological "herd" result. Eugenics was embraced/funded by the mega-wealthy (e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Harriman, Carnegie) and the educated classes. There were few critics of eugenics at the time. The eugenics “promise” was the eradication of poverty, crime, and disease. It did no such thing. It brought out the worst in people – racism, bigotry, cruelty, brutality.

Post-WWII, the eugenics issue was never resolved in America. The greatest concentration of eugenicists was in America. Eugenicists didn’t just disappear or change their philosophy. They simply stopped using the “E”[ugenics] word. In the 1970s there was another emergence of an obsession-with-physical-health movement. Unfamiliar with eugenics, the movement was referred to as “healthism”. Healthism is actually the hygienism of eugenics. Healthism is the behavioral dimension of eugenics by another name.

The current antismoking onslaught involves the typical eugenics “personnel” – physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, and, more recently, behaviorists. It involves the same physicalism/materialism (biological reductionism) that produces a perverse, sterile definition of health stripped of the art, detail, and humanity of living. It involves the same reliance on flimsy population-level statistics (lifestyle epidemiology) that were pioneered by eugenicists early last century for population (herd) control. It revolves around “prevention”, the cornerstone of the eugenics framework. There is the same utter obsession with longevity for its own sake. It involves the same constant call for a “healthier” or “better” society. It involves the same primacy of the medical establishment and social-engineering intent where all should be coerced to abide by this superficial, “medicalized/statisticalized” framework, i.e. medical imperialism. It involves the same denormalization and mass propaganda techniques, a constant fear and hate-mongering playing on the primal fear of disease and death, to achieve social-engineering goals.

We can also see that the social engineering is extending beyond tobacco to alcohol, diet, and physical exercise – that’s the behavioral dimension of eugenics.

Could it be that the Pharmafia has some "Sugar Replacement Therapies" etc. in the pipeline? Or some nice drugs that remove the pleasure from eating? Maybe with the negligible and thus hushed side effect of turning some into zombies?

The WHO should change their name to "Umbrella Corporation" as they obviously have become the political arm of the United Pharmafia.

If Drs WHO from the time where it was doing what it was meant for--coordinating and fighting real transmittable diseases--could see the deranged monster its decendent have become, they would sure be flabbergasted.

It’s America that popularized eugenics. The Germans and Hitler were students of American eugenics. Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and German eugenics.

American eugenics is terribly under-researched. It’s one of the main reasons why we’re right back to the medical establishment perversely dominating the definition of “health” and venturing into destructive social-engineering. It’s an insanity revisited. Adding to the confusion is that the above link, one of the rare analyses of America eugenics, makes no mention that eugenics was/is anti-tobacco/alcohol (i.e., prohibitionist).

Even with the eugenics catastrophe resulting in the Nazi era, the first person appointed director of the WHO (1948) was Brock Chisholm,a eugenicist. The first director of UNESCO, another UN agency, was the high-profile eugenicist, Julian Huxley.

I don't think all that seems to matter is whether it is manufactured by a big business or not. If McDonald's only sold organic carrots and chocolate was only available from the local farm shop, it would be the carrots the WHO would want banned.

Antismoking hysteria was rife in Americain the late-1800s/early-1900s. There were all sorts of deranged, baselessclaims made about the “detrimental effects of smoking”. There was also aplethora of snake-oil “cures” for “saving the slaves to tobacco”. Below aresome of the snake oil “cures” offered in America.They’re all from the mid-1800s to early-1900s.

“That the use of Tobacco shortens human life from Five to Twentyyears, decreases manly vigor in the same ratio, causes a majority of the sudden deaths attributed to heart disease, and renders the subject more susceptible and less able to withstand any disease, is the opinion of our most eminent physicians. How shall we rid ourselves of this accursed habit, and prevent the uninitiated from falling into it? …..”

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c02485/

That sounds exactly like contemporary antismoking. And note the standardprohibitionist refrain that we now hear incessantly – How shall werid ourselves of this accursed habit, and prevent the uninitiated from fallinginto it?

The real scientists had important work to do. So the position of political figureheads was up to grabs for small brains with big egos. Now the big egos have smothered those on whose work they have risen. All that is left are big egos and small brains. And lots of political brawn.

As Rand Paul just said last week The childreeen belong to the parents not the government..........Ive said the same thing for over 20 years at PTO meetings gaining wide applause from the parents in the meeting.

In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.

I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.

Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.

The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.

Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.

This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.

You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.

I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant. About me

I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.

With the totally altruistic and humanistic Pharmafia?A perfectly serendipitous coincidence, for sure!Whoever insinuates they might have (ab)used some corrupt influence for filthy lucre must be an astroturf for The Devil PigTobacco!

More like a promise. No matter how drunk a man is (or women, for political correctness), they'll keep him from making a mistake he would regret for the rest of his life. And that would have to be some epic alcoholic orgy.

Absolutely! And, what do parents feed very picky children who will only eat jam sandwiches or crisps, or sponge fingers, etc? Perhaps the WHO would prefer the parent let the child starve - it wouldn't surprise me, after all, it seems they have to get their brownie points, so can't possible tolerate any failures to comply!

Thank you for being sincere enough to your 'trade' and brave enough to speak the truth, even though it is not what you would have expected or wanted the outcome of the research to be.

Sadly, too many scientists these days are all too willing to accept the pay of the 'devil' and be damned about publishing the truth. unless on the odd occasion the truth does actually support the pre-determined outcome!

It doesn't really surprise me that he was ok. He was obviously getting sufficient nutrients for his needs! Who knows whether he was fed nothing but jam sandwiches because that was all he would eat or whether it was all his parents fed him. I would hope that with the right encouragement he would eventually broaden his tastes, but Encouragement is the key word here - trying to force feed a child foods they do not 'like' is totally counter productive!

I think it was all he would eat, and perhaps the parents just gave in! It rather undermines the food police's messages about 'essential nutrients' though. I'm also waiting for an apology for all the rubbish advice about animal fats and butter, but I'm not holding my breath...